Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children
By John-Henry Westen
NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.
While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."
In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.
The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."
Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".
The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."
Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."
Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."
Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."
Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."
And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."
See Fr. Geiger's full review here:
http://airmaria.com/
Jack Van Impe skirts dangerously close (and sometimes passes over) where Scripture forbids one to go. I've heard him on numerous occasions get close to or overstep date-setting prohibitions and the naming of the antiChrist. As such, I weed through what he says, take what is good and throw out the rest.
To my knowledge, He hasn't claimed that there are 9 members of the trinity or that we are gods like Benny has.
Yes there are many ways it can be taken. A little thing like CONTEXT drives one to a certain interpretation. She was found to be with child BEFORE THEY CAME TOGETHER makes no sense unless the coming together was sexual intercourse. Before they lived together? That doesn't prohibit one from being a father of a child. Context says that Joseph and Mary had a normal relationship.
(Romans 3:23 KJV) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
(Romans 5:12 KJV) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(1 John 1:8 KJV) If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
(Mark 10:18 KJV) And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
And I just drove home after a blizzard. One of these days I will wise up and head south, not north, for Christmas. :)
Good to see the thread is approaching my prediction of 15,000 posts. At this rate we should hit it by February.
That's not what the Gospel says. It says that +Jospeh "took" Mary for a wife. The Greek term (parelamben) in the original has a rainbow of meanings, all of which are applicable, and not all even suggest what you are suggesting.
It has already been explained that in the CONTEXT of times caretaker marriages were not uncommon, and also in the CONTEXT of the earliest patristic teachings no one taught what the Protestants teach today, and it has been explained that in the CONTEXT of the Judaic culture the terms brothers did not necessarily mean full-blood siblings and no one from the earliest days of the Church taught otherwise.
In the CONTEXT of things, there is not a single critique of the Protoevangelium of James, calling it heresy, fraud or something out of context of the times, culture and beliefs. Yet it was not deemed to be inspired by the Church, even though the church would have had every reason to wish it inspired. But certainly it did not proclaim anything that was contrary to the times, as understood in the CONTEXT of the times when it was written.
If anyone is taking things out of context it is the heterodox Protestant community, quite unlike even the very founders of Protestant heresy, Luther, Calvin Zwigili, etc. who held on to more traditional and correct teachings regarding Mary and the Lord's half-brothers and half-sisters.
I have a response to your post, but I have to get to Mass now so will respond later.
Text-proofing again?
How about
The Bible teaches that none of us is inherently good or perfect, yet it also teaches that there are righteous and blameless among us.
None of us is without blame, but in the eyes of God some of us are acceptable to God because of what is in our hearts. If you fit the Beatitudes, chances are you are one of them.
Job was not really perfect, but in the eyes of God he was acceptable. David was not perfect, but because what was in his heart, God found favor for him.
God forgives the repentant heart, and makes us holy and perfect. As +Augustine says
By your own argument you are including Job in the "all" who have sinned. If he had perfection in God's eyes it was because it was imputed unto him because of his faith. Mary would be in the same boat. As would you and I. We are all sinners saved by grace. All have sinned. Even Job, even Mary. There is none "good" except God and all those who are seen as "good" are seen as good only because they have righteousness that has been imputed to them.
There is no scriptural exception to Mary anywhere in the bible. Noah found grace in the eyes of God as did Abraham as did Mary. But none of them was perfect.
Jack's quite a sola scriptura guy too. He's also known as "The Walking Bible."
How about Kenneth Copeland?
How about Pope Alexander VI?
You disagree with with the positions you posted?
I'll try to catch him. What channel is he on?
What are you talking about?
Of course, my point is that the Protestant Bereanism if I can coin the term, is not sufficient for maintaining proper doctrine and teaching.
I think this was your point: Sola Scriptura and testing against the scriptures is the primary requirement for right doctrine and right teaching.
My response was to show that in your own opinion, it's not. There must be something more required, yes?
Talking about the post I responded to. Do you disagree with the positions on marriage and chastity that you posted?
Wrong. From Scripture, I can tell you that Benny Hinn, Jack Van Impe, and Kenneth Copeland are false prophets and should be shunned. Sola Scripture and Bereanism work just fine here. I never made a claim that there weren't heretics masquerading as protestants. We know that they are aberant, however, by comparing what they say with Scripture- just like the Bereans.
Which positions were those?
1) That's what they say they're doing, too.
2) Your sola scriptura is aberant to me. Now what?
Not being personal here, but how does this theological structure work? Correct sola scriptural to you is not correct to another.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.